October 17, 2005

Gephardt on Iraq: "I was wrong"

Former House Minority Leader the Hon. Dick Gephardt was in Seattle last
week on several accounts -- a victory lap for his mediation of the Boeing strike, a business seminar for the DC law firm where he hangs his hat, and a funder for Rep. Jim McDermott's Legal Expense
Trust. [We'll hear more on this as Boehner v McDermott reaches critical junctures
in DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and in the political arena as some of the original cast of heavies -- Gingrich, DeLay, Boehner -- prepare to test their chops in an XTREME ETHICS Cage Match Spectacular: "Moral Equivalence" .]

At this odd-couple tag-team appearance -- "Baghdad Jim" McDermott
and "Rose Garden Richard" Gephardt -- the inevitable question was
voiced: "Why did you support Bush on the Iraq War, and what would
you do differently now?".

Rep. Gephardt's response is reproduced here from my verbatim notes,
with his confirmation and concurrence, as a perspective that deserves attention both to fill gaps in the first draft of history
and to smooth cracks in the road to progressive political unity.

GEPHARDT to BUSH: "We have to trust each other. You have to trust us, and we have to trust you."

These sentiments were repeated in public comment that evening by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.

Late 2001 - early 2002:

Like others, GEPHARDT hears the grapevine buzz about Iraq in DC corridors of power.

As Wes Clark often recalls, the Pentagon laugh line was "If Saddam didn't attack us, he should have, because we're going to take him out anyway".

February, 2002:

GEPHARDT to BUSH: You have my support if it's about Weapons of Mass Destruction -- but not if it's about Saddam. "If it's about Saddam there are 30 countries we need to invade tomorrow morning."

Later:

GEPHARDT to BUSH: The US can't go into this alone. If it's done, it has to be done multilaterally -- with regional partners, NATO, the UN.

[Recall speculation in this interval to the effect that Bush could and would take the US into Iraq without international partners -- and even without action by Congress.]

Later still:

BUSH to GEPHARDT: "Dick, I'm gonna do what you've been talking about", i.e., premise the case for invasion on Saddam's WMD threat Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[History may have turned on this exchange.

Insiders later hinted that WMD wasn't (variously) the central, sole, or real reason for invading Iraq, that it was agreed among the principals as a politically plausible casus belli.

Deputy SecDef Paul Paul Wolfowitz, 2003-05-09 " ... for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason ...".]

GEPHARDT: "In response to the President's desire for congressional support and, in keeping with our constitutional responsibilities, I have worked to draft a resolution that reflects the views of a large bipartisan segment of Congress. My underlying goal in this process has been to ensure that Iraq is disarmed, and to lessen the likelihood that weapons of mass destruction can be passed to terrorists."

This concession effectively short-circuited any attempt to attach binding conditions to a War Powers Resolution, or to weigh the WMD thesis even-handedly. On the other hand, Bush would have found a route to war in the face of any conceivable action or inaction in Congress.

[UPDATE: errata - corrected from 2005-10-10, and how did we both miss that?]2005-10-11, Seattle, WA:

GEPHARDT: "It was a mistake ... I was wrong."

The Rose Garden compact was a mistake. The War Powers vote was a mistake. Trusting this Administration was a mistake.

And this history suggests -- in the tradition of a classic sales training parable, the farmer's daughter joke -- that Gephardt (the prospect) telegraphed exactly what Bush (the salesman) had to say to clinch the sale. "Dick, I'm gonna do what you've been talking about". A mistake.

In the national interest, in a time of crisis, our side played its cards face up -- and they held cards up their sleeves. They knew what they wanted, and they played on our patriotic idealism and earnest statesmanship to freeze us -- "the opposition" -- in untenable positions. Must we now become them in order to overcome them? (Short answer, "No", but that's an argument for another day.)

"I was wrong." Powerful, healing words, for those who have ears to hear them. Not everyone can say them yet, or with full conviction. Those who do still have to figure out what to tell the Gold Star Mom who wants to know her son died for a noble cause, as well as the Gold Star Mom who wants to know the troops are coming home.

[On a personal note,I was right -- but the Iraq War vote had to be a vote of conscience, not party discipline, and I've never insisted anyone eat crow for my amusement. Peacemakers cannot nurse grudges.

And a small irony -- on the White House website, the current Iraq index page is captioned
"Renewal in IRAQ" ... but the "Rose Garden moment" archive page still
screams "IRAQ: DENIAL AND DECEPTION".]

POST-MORTEM's

The Great Mistake:

We never comprehended the complexity of the undertaking. I didn't. None of us did.

The Greater Mistake:

The President has never been honest about the sacrifices required ... the lives lost, the eyes blown out. Bush fails the first test of leadership: "Can you be honest with the people you lead?"

THE ROAD AHEAD

Will we pull the troops out?

Until very recently, I thought we [Bush] would pull out in time for the 2006 elections. Now it doesn't look like we will.

Winning the War on Terror:

We can't win just by killing people. We never dealt with underlying causes ... [perceptions of] oppression, religious duties. The madrasas are still in business. US energy policy [that] leaves us beholden to the oil states. Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world.

On bipartisan cooperation:

I've lost all faith in the integrity of Moderate Republicans. [but with a kind word for the old-school Mike Castle]

Why are they so pathetically weak that they can't stand up to him [DeLay]? Does he have them hypnotized? ... Is he holding their children hostage? ... I don't get it!

Democrats in power would not -- and could not -- exercise that kind of discipline.

On taking our country back:

If the election were held today, Democrats would win back the House [but a year is an eternity in politics].

Rep. Gephardt shared additional comments on the predicament of the nation and the Democrats, some of which I'll reprise at a later date.

Comments

Great post, Ron.

When I told mr. emptywheel about this post, he said, "Oh, you mean Gephardt isn't running for anything." Which I think is key. I hope Gep can be a model others can follow. But I'm not holding my breath, particularly among the future presidential candidates.

This is very generous, and maybe should be, but it's missing the one thing that pertains to any recent history of candidates for elective office on the national level (senators and congressmen, Democrats and Republicans especially): specifically, what kind of pressure was brought to bear on Gephardt by AIPAC ... [Routine puppetmaster rant elided for brevity -- RonK] ... where the flow of money controls the electoral process, owners can do no wrong; wrongs are only done by the ones who seek to be owned (a necessary condition for seeking office, it would seem).

It is good, and important, to see Gephardt saying this, and this is an important post.

However, the formatting doesn't do it justice. There are long "asides" in blockquotes, and it isn't quite clear to me what is what in some points. What exactly did Gephardt say? Which parts are history as you researched it?

I think it's important that everyone remember that a majority of Congressional Democrats--a big majority in the House, a narrow minority in the Senate, a combined majority--voted AGAINST the IWR. Most prominent Dems who weren't running for President voted against it, and several of the Dem Senators who voted for it were either defeated in 2002 (Cleland, Carnahan) or have retired (Breaux, Hollings).

I think this is very important for several reasons, one of which Ron made explicit with his line about "smooth[ing] cracks in the road to progressive political unity." One can respond with "too little, too late." Or we can at least acknowledge that SOMEONE is owning up to his role in making it easier for the White House to lead us into this war, and build upon that admission that the war was a mistake. Note that it doesn't sound like Gephardt is saying, as many liberal hawks have done, that the problem with the war was it's conduct, the poor job Bush has done in executing it (which is a way to exonerate oneself for supporting it). No, Gephardt is saying the war itself was wrong, and that by indicating what conditions would garner his support, he (in my opinion naively) gave them the roadmap of how to get his support, which they did by lying about WMD.

If Gephardt, who was leader, can own up to his huge role, maybe others can as well. Hell, let them blame Gephardt and Daschle, I don't care. But if we get more people saying it was wrong, that we're in the war and it's screwed up not because we don't have enough troops or didn't get a big enough coalition, but because it was wrong from the start and predicted on lies, that would be a tremendous and good thing, and something we should all embrace.

completely OT- but I thought you would want to know:
Was just listening to the fabulous community radio station WMNF 88.5 FM (http://wmnf.org) and the broadcast of Counterspin (produced by FAIR).
The discussion included an interview of Village Voice's (editor? or a reporter?- sorry, didn't catch that)
but after discussing the Traitorgate and the media's complicit nature and role in all this, he said the nature of journalism (as it should be practiced) is changing. And, he said journalism is moving. He cited NGOs as legitimate sources of information, and of course mentioned the blogs. AND= cited The Next Hurrah as the place to get your journalism.

I visit here thanks to linking through from firedoglake, americablog and other sources. have bookmarked you- and apologize if this is old news.

Just wanted to mention it and give you your props! :o)
thanks for all you do!

Journalamilism is praticed on the blogsd... not always, and not always well, but after reading the Sunday NY Times this weekend, bloggers have nothing to apologize for. and that will become even more apparent when the DC journalists, one by one, get to explain their role in what they knew and when they knew it (think Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert, for three).

we would have done worse that have Gephart be the nominee. He couldn't and didn't win, but he's abn honorable man. That's more than i can say for Bush.

Looks like the exiled Dems are working on smoothing the way for a more coordinated objection in the current power set. Kerry got blasted for "flip-flopping" on the war, which revealed the need for Dems to start spreading the "we were misled; we were wrong" memes. It starts to establish a respectable base for elected Dems to rally around in a way that is not immediately damaging to their hold on seats.

Joel's right. It was infuriating to me that Kerry didn't do that himself, because it wasn't just the Congressional Dems who were misled, it was the entire country. Unfortunately it had to wait until now for a prominent Dem supporter of the Presdent's Iraq policy to say he was wrong, but also that the President lied. Now it will not only make it easier for other Dems to take a respectable position, one that not only works for Dems who may be embarassed to have let themselves be mislead, but for voters who haven't been completely willing to admit that they allowed themselves to be mislead, and that they believed the President even though it was all a lie.

but for voters who haven't been completely willing to admit that they allowed themselves to be mislead, and that they believed the President even though it was all a lie.

That has been a problem. It isn't just the polititions that are afraid or unwilling to admit they were easily mislead. I'm not as optimistic about what will happen with the rest of the dems since this is the first I've heard about this. Was it covered in any media?

Seriously, this is Ron's scoop. Now, will the rest of the media follow up on it, even though it first appeared on a blog? Will anyone pick up a phone and call Dick Gephardt and ask him about it? We'll see.

At this point, I don't care if Gephardt's Rose Garden moment WAS all about his Presidential ambitions. Bush was going to war regardless. What we need now is a party that's willing to say the Iraq war was wrong from the get-go. Gephardt's words are a step in that direction.

"I've lost all faith in the integrity of Moderate Republicans...[w]hy are they so pathetically weak that they can't stand up to him [DeLay]? Does he have them hypnotized? ... Is he holding their children hostage? ... I don't get it!"

Put me down for "they only want to LOOK moderate." If they wanted to actually BE moderate, and effect moderate results, they could bolt the party as a group, and as a "Bull Moose Party" controlling the swing votes in Congress, they could opt to caucus with whichever party was willing to hew more closely to THEIR agenda.

Congratulations, Mr. Gephardt. And to you, RonK, for showing us his mea culpa.

I agree that Peacemakers cannot nurse grudges, so I'm not going to ask why it's taken so damned long for Mr. Gephardt to come around to this position. But, as a (lapsed) Catholic, I know that every good confession requires repentance - truly being sorry, with a pledge not to do it again - and performing penance.

As half his penance, let me suggest that this former presidential candidate reshape and extend his comments cited above and repeat, repeat, repeat in public forums across the nation. As for the other half, let him spend time one-on-one persuading elected Democrats who have not yet come to his position that they should do so.

DHinMI rightly notes that a majority of congressional Democrats opposed the Iraq War Resolution of three years ago. And I think a very good case can be made for saying that if the Supreme Court had not gone all ideological in Bush v. Gore, the war probably wouldn't have happened at all.

But what disturbs me, and not just a little, is how very few Democrats - even those Democrats who did oppose the IWR, much less those who voted in favor of it - have spoken regularly and forcefully as this war drags on. A great deal of that recalcitrance seems to relate to a fear that they - individually and the Democrats as a party - will be painted as weak on defense or even pro-terrorist. Their inability to properly "frame" their opposition is worth how many lives?

One more point.

I can embrace Mr. Gephardt and say a hearty "thank you" for admitting his "mistake" of being taken in by the Administration's sly propaganda. But letting the war itself be described as a "mistake" gives too much slack to those who concocted it.

A mistake is when you drop the screwdriver down the drain when you're trying to fix the sink. While the outcome was not at all what its progenitors expected, and while grotesque errors were made in carrying out the war and continue to be made, the war was not a mistake. The rationale for it was invented out of whole cloth. The lies that took us into that war were intentional, no more a mistake than the lying Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a mistake.

MB's point about mistakes is crucial, and probably the key issue for the Democrats. It was a mistake that Democrats supported the White House and supported the war. It wasn't a mistake that the White House got the support of Congressional Dems like Gephardt (and most of the people who are past or current Presidential candidates), it was the result of deliberate lies proffered as part of a strategy to conduct an invasion and occupation of Iraq.

And the other mistake was that too many voters supported the war and didn't see through Bush's lies.

Rep. Gephardt's remarks from the podium were made to a small audience: Rep. McDermott and a couple dozen supporters, contributors (mostly labor) and activists (Whitney Williams, daughter of former MT-AL Democratic Rep. Pat Williams ... Dean Nielsen of Progressive Majority).

We discussed this afterward in context of two or three tangential or unrelated fence-mending enterprises. I suggested that the day's disclosures had not been heard widely, and that the message could be shared with a wider audience to good effect (though with inevitable flame-broiling on the public spit).

Perhaps nobody else heard the remarks with a proper ear to historic context, or thought to ask.

I am sure others will follow up, and some of a prosecutorial bent will insist "Confession is not good enough! We must have every detail, signed in blood ... and only then can put an end to your misery".

Take it as a good start, in good faith, and work with it in good faith.

I am sure others will follow up, and some of a prosecutorial bent will insist "Confession is not good enough! We must have every detail, signed in blood ... and only then can put an end to your misery".

Take it as a good start, in good faith, and work with it in good faith.

I am taking it in "good faith" if that wasn't clear. I was unclear on just how many people were there, reading isn't always fundamental, and was questioning why it didn't receive more play. This should be big news.

As far as the "prosecurorial" people, they won't be happy unless Gep sit's in front of the White House, douses himself with gasoline and imoliates himself as a way to ask their forgiveness.

I'm clear that Gephardt sees things that way. But everywhere I turn, critics are calling the war itself a "mistake." For some, that's an improvement over previous analyses. But what I fear is that this will become the long-term theme, just as it has for Vietnam even though after August 1964, prosecution of that war was not a mistake by those in charge of it.

Gephardt states that he shouldn't have trusted the swine. Who is he trying to kid?

He didn't climb the greasey pole to House leadership by being naive. It goddamned insulting that he dared to have said that. I live across across the continent from DC, and knew better, along with millions of other people.

That said, for purely partisan reasons, I'll hope other democrats follow his disingenuous lead, and begin to admit to error. All things considered, the "I shouldn't have trusted" spiel isn't a bad way to explain the unforgivable.

DH and Meteor make good points. For clarity's sake, what I think Gephardt was saying was that his SUPPORT for the war was a mistake. It was a mistake to have trusted Bush. This is something any Dem who voted for the war can say, and in fact every one of them should say it.

Was the war itself a mistake? It was not a "mistake" but a deliberate act on the part of Bush--Meteor is exactly right. The White House propaganda machine, aided and abetted by the NY Times and many, many others in the press and punditry, drummed up support for the war based on flimsy and outright bogus intelligence, hyped to make things seem much worse than an objective analysis would have declared.

It was a mistake for the American people (like the Dems) to have trusted Bush and, for that matter, the media, and the effects as this understanding becomes more sidespread, will be significant.

Was the war itself a mistake? It was wrong, it was based on mistakes of fact, willful blindness and outright lies. But "mistake" doesn't do it justice. The greatest military blunder in American History is more like it.

But it was also a mistake, because as tristero set out in such clarity at Digby the other day, the sanctions were working, Saddam had dismantled his WMD, especially his nuclear program, and if the WH hadn't been so dead set on going to war, they might have listened to dissenting views and saved almost 2000
American and a hundred thousand Iraqi lives.

Thanks Ron for passing this moment on to those who weren't there, and thanks to Gephardt for showing the way. "It was a mistake to have trusted Bush." Easy to say, and it's a start. Then let's start talking about how to rectify the situation before any more damage is done. Let's start talking about how to begin drawing down the troops and trying something else, like diplomacy.

I prefer this to the faux outrage that accompanies the claim that one was lied to by the Bush administration. It was very, very clear in 2002 that Bush intended on using the powers granted to him by Congress, no matter what Hussein did.

Chuck,
I think a key piece of this Gephardt story is Tenet. Remember, he was a Dem staffer of the Senate Intel committee for years, and was (along with Mineta) the only top-level carryover from the Clinton administration. It sounds to me that he was the key validator. Despite the venality and essential duplicity of the Bushies, people still didn't want to believe, in the wake of 9-11, that they were completely incapable of putting the national interest before all else. It sounds like Gephardt was wary, but he gave them the one rationale that Tenet could confirm, the WMD rationale. So in terms of getting Gephardt on board, Tenet may have been the most important player...and maybe the only key one who may have cared whether what he was saying was correct, but truly got it wrong.

[Inadvertently extended recap of comments elided -- RonK]But, as a (lapsed) Catholic, I know that every good confession requires repentance - truly being sorry, with a pledge not to do it again - and performing penance.

As half his penance, let me suggest that this former presidential candidate reshape and extend his comments cited above and repeat, repeat, repeat in public forums across the nation. As for the other half, let him spend time one-on-one persuading elected Democrats who have not yet come to his position that they should do so.

DHinMI rightly notes that a majority of congressional Democrats opposed the Iraq War Resolution of three years ago. And I think a very good case can be made for saying that if the Supreme Court had not gone all ideological in Bush v. Gore, the war probably wouldn't have happened at all.

I think we would be in Iran and Syria by now.

Regardless what the majority thought, the ambitious would not be outbid on bellicosity. That's why too this day the top names are still angling to the right, saying we need to send more troops.

Well, it's about time Dick. I hope you also appologized in person to Howard Dean and admit to him that he was right, right from the start. You said a lot of crap about him that wasn't true. And you were partly responsible for his Iowa defeat because of the dirty smear campaign you ran against him.

I have to echo Kevin Schmidt and add that he (and quite a few others) owe apologies not just to Howard Dean, but to Dean's many supporters. You know, the Volvo-driving, latte-drinking, Hollywood freak show. (Or in my case a Jeep-driving, black coffee drinking native of Cleveland, Ohio.)

And what possible reason could he have for saying "I was wrong" in October 2005? Wasn't it obvious a couple years ago? Didn't it occur to Gephardt to make this clear sometime prior to November 2004?

He coined the phrase and he should say it every time he looks in the mirror: miserable failure.

Too many wrong ads said Howard Dean was right from the beginning. Although not voting, he was for the IWR, and at times more unilateralist. What Gephardt did was to stop the Biden-Lugar Resolution, which would have brought Bush back to Congress, however ceremonial. Bottom line is that Bush sold it as a unified lever for peace, even though he would have gone to war without Congress. That was just a political poison pill for the Dems. Bush campaigned against those who said no as against cooperation for fighting terrorism, so won both ways and tied everyone up in pretzels. The media deliberately said they didn't get it, when they did, full well.

Please no more litmus tests on the past, because foreign policy, winning our elections and stopping election fraud are more important and requiring some unity.

Not much use to the thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.. (Maybe 200,000.. The study in The Lancet excluded families where all members had died and the victims of both USUK Falluja massacres, and everyone since then) and the thousands maimed and yet to be aborted from USUK DU.
Anyone who supported the attack is a war criminal ( by generally accepted international legal consensus) even those who colluded by failing to act are implicated, eg mainstream US media editors.

Anyone who thinks Gephardt (or any other Democrat) could have stopped Bush from going to war in Iraq is a fool.
Sorry, but Bush never gave a damn what Congress did on Iraq.
Remember that Bush's invasion was illegal anyway.
The so-called "war resolution" could not and did not authorize war.
Regular laws can only define when force can be used - and the resolution actually decreased Bush's ability to legally use force.
The bill's "approval of war" was only symbolic and Bush did not even meet the requirements for that symbolic approval (Bush certainly did not meet the legal requirements when he launched his war).
Gephardt achieved the maximum limits on Bush's ability to legally use force in the Middle East (remember that Gephardt's compromise bill replaced a Republican bill which would have condoned the invasion of all of Iraq's neighbors on Bush's slightest whim).
It is also worth noting that any Democratic attempts to further limit the Republicans would have required the cooperation of Zell Miller (now revealed to be a raving NeoCon).
The key mistake of Gephardt was how he presented the compromise bill to the public:
No one should have expressed confidence in Bush (even though the early stages of the war had already begun and American forces were already in harm's way); the quest to end Bush's immoral and illegal actions should have taken priority over any desire to express national unity.
Finally, yes, Gephardt and many, many others should have spent the last few years attacking Bush's illegal and immoral war and pointing out Bush's violation of the Congressional "War Resolution" that Bush has been claiming as authorization of his crimes.
Pointing out Bush's criminality may itself have very little chance of ending the war, but it has the potential to secure public support for driving Bush from office.

Frankly, if anyone was dumb enough to fall for Bush's war, they are too dumb to be in public office. Too dumb or too crooked. I'm glad to gear Gephardt speak out now, but his comments reek more of political maneuvering than of sincerity. Why do I find it hard to trust any of these guys?

Hmmmmmmm..... I have no experience in elected office or in Washington, DC, either, so I'll call myself an expert on National and International politics!

My take on this issue: anyone who read about the lying bush and the lying cuthroats who ran his campaign against Governor Ann Richards back in the 1990's could easily see he could not and cannot be trusted. How could anyone in Congress trust him after what they did to her, and later and much worse, how could anyone trust the shrub or anyone in his administration or who supported him during the 2000 election with its lowest of low tactics?? This was well before 9/12/01. Well, sounds like Mr. Gephardt did:

"2001-09-12, the White House, a bipartisan leadership meeting:

GEPHARDT to BUSH: "We have to trust each other. You have to trust us, and we have to trust you."

These sentiments were repeated in public comment that evening by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle."

Pardon me for being a liberal-democrat-agnostic-cynic, but this "I made a mistake" confession doesn't have the ring of truth to it.

Those who voted for bush's IWR and invasion will have to do something really big, really special, to get right with many of us: how about bringing back to life those who died for this "mistake", or giving the eyes and arms and legs and testicles and kidneys and lungs back to those who were injured for this "mistake". Not likely, eh?

Like the popular Gen. Schwarzkopf quote (myth or not) about forgiveness, it's up to god to forgive....

Mr. Gephard has grossly forgotten an important moderate republican who stood up and asked for DeLay's resignation before 90% of the democrats even asked for it. Christopher Shays of CT VERY PUBLICLY announced DeLay should step down--search CNN news if you want it was covered in about 1000 articles. My parties all or nothing attitude is really upsetting me lately and I may just have to switch from a democrat to an unafiliated issue voter.

I'm sorry, for the Dems that are now trying to clean up their mistake on this, I have no respect. During the run up to war, was the time to take a stand. Those that did, continue to have my respect, because they saw what was easy to see, if people just listened. Those that were concerned about being re-elected, only showed me that being re-elected is their primary concern. Not the people they server, for if it was about the people they serve, they would've voted no, so the young men and women from their districts would not have been sent to fight in a illegal war. Too Little, Too Late The damage has been done.

No war, no dead Iraqis or Americans, no stupid debate about why war was stupid and no one got the picture.

The answer is way too easy, it is the withdrawal symptoms most will suffer when realizing they will have to think for themselves rather than electing a politican to think for them, that makes this all so difficult. Y'all keep hoping that maybe one politician will get it right. The Gephardt admission should scream volumes at us--he is not "wrong"--he was ignorant of BushCo, just as BushCo was ignorant of their goofy BS in the Middle East. We got what we voted for--ignorance at the highest level.

There is only one political party in this country--the government. It has two factions (D or R) within it, but either or both will stick it to the citizen at every chance, and defending either faction is akin to admitting the loss of capacity for rational thought.

The American experiment died many decades ago . . . we are merely playing janitor and complaining about the foul stench as we begin to clean up the mess we voted to perit them to create.